• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Our Earliest Ancestor

It looked more like a core to me as well. But still very cool.

Most definitely Coal - Ultra cool, evidence of knowledge of the consequences of impact, and how hard the impact needs to be and an awareness of where to strike...they have also reversed the core and were cleaning it up, preparing a new face for the next - this is not the haphazard attempt at knapping - this is an awareness of specific stone, a known technology for attaining the best implements, and the one strike to attain it.

They couldn't have written a better resume for a 2.4 million year old Stone Smith...I lifts my hat.
 
She was a remarkable creature. This is the field that drew me to university as a mature-age student, back in the early 90s before the old tree had branched out. Still a fascinating area of discovery and wonder. Can we envisage a time when genetically reincarnated archaic specimens will live again contemporaneously with moderns?
lucy.png
She's lovely. We met in the in the Museum of Natural History, New York. We were in the hall of early Hominids, a circular room, so people naturally gravitate towards the displays on the walls. A number of people were ahead of my wife and I as we entered, so I walked into the center of the room and there in a small display case she was. I believe the original bones are housed now in Ethiopia.
Lucy.jpg
 
A new skull from 3,9 million years ago has been found.
What I find interesting is that judging from the photo, it has a sagittal crest.

I'm guessing you're referring to this newly-breaking story:
New Fossil Reveals Face of Oldest Known 'Lucy' Relative

A nearly complete cranium from Ethiopia reveals the face of Australopithecus anamensis, the oldest known species of Australopithecus. ...

FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/nearly-complete-lucy-ancestor-skull-unearthed.html

... Right?
 
Here's a more extensive article from Science Daily ...
A face for Lucy's ancestor

Researchers have discovered a remarkably complete 3.8-million-year-old cranium of Australopithecus anamensis at Woranso-Mille in Ethiopia. The 3.8 million-year-old fossil cranium represents a time interval between 4.1 and 3.6 million years ago.
Share:

Australopithecus anamensis is the earliest-known species of Australopithecus and widely accepted as the progenitor of 'Lucy's' species, Australopithecus afarensis. Until now, A. anamensis was known mainly from jaws and teeth. Yohannes Haile-Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Stephanie Melillo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and their colleagues have discovered the first cranium of A. anamensis at the paleontological site of Woranso-Mille, in the Afar Region of Ethiopia.

The 3.8 million-year-old fossil cranium represents a time interval between 4.1 and 3.6 million years ago, when A. anamensis gave rise to A. afarensis. Researchers used morphological features of the cranium to identify which species the fossil represents. "Features of the upper jaw and canine tooth were fundamental in determining that MRD was attributable to A. anamensis," said Melillo. "It is good to finally be able to put a face to the name." The MRD cranium, together with other fossils previously known from the Afar, show that A. anamensis and A. afarensis co-existed for approximately 100,000 years. This temporal overlap challenges the widely-accepted idea of a linear transition between these two early human ancestors. Haile-Selassie said: "This is a game changer in our understanding of human evolution during the Pliocene."

Working for the past 15 years at the site, the team discovered the cranium (MRD-VP-1/1, here referred to as "MRD") in February 2016. ...


Geology and age determination

In a companion paper published in the same issue of Nature, Beverly Saylor of Case Western Reserve University and her colleagues determined the age of the fossil as 3.8 million years by dating minerals in layers of volcanic rocks nearby. They mapped the dated levels to the fossil site using field observations and the chemistry and magnetic properties of rock layers. Saylor and her colleagues combined the field observations with analysis of microscopic biological remains to reconstruct the landscape, vegetation and hydrology where MRD died.

MRD was found in the sandy deposits of a delta where a river entered a lake. The river likely originated in the highlands of the Ethiopian plateau while the lake developed at lower elevations where rift activity caused the Earth surface to stretch and thin, creating the lowlands of the Afar region. Fossil pollen grains and chemical remains of fossil plant and algae that are preserved in the lake and delta sediments provide clues about the ancient environmental conditions. Specifically they indicate that the watershed of the lake was mostly dry but that there were also forested areas on the shores of the delta or along the side the river that fed the delta and lake system. ...

A new face in the crowd

Australopithecus anamensis is the oldest known member of the genus Australopithecus. Due to the cranium's rare near-complete state, the researchers identified never-before-seen facial features in the species. "MRD has a mix of primitive and derived facial and cranial features that I didn't expect to see on a single individual," Haile-Selassie said. Some characteristics were shared with later species, while others had more in common with those of even older and more primitive early human ancestor groups such as Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus. ...

Branching out

Among the most important findings was the team's conclusion that A. anamensis and its descendant species, the well-known A. afarensis, coexisted for a period of at least 100,000 years. This finding contradicts the long-held notion of an anagenetic relationship between these two taxa, instead supporting a branching pattern of evolution. Melillo explains: "We used to think that A. anamensis gradually turned into A. afarensis over time. We still think that these two species had an ancestor-descendent relationship, but this new discovery suggests that the two species were actually living together in the Afar for quite some time. It changes our understanding of the evolutionary process and brings up new questions -- were these animals competing for food or space?"

This conclusion is based on the assignment of the 3.8-million-year-old MRD to A. anamensis and the 3.9-million-year-old hominin cranial fragment commonly known as the Belohdelie frontal, to A. afarensis. The Belohdelie frontal was discovered in the Middle Awash of Ethiopia by a team of paleontologists in 1981, but its taxonomic status has been questioned in the intervening years.

The new MRD cranium enabled the researchers to characterize frontal morphology in A. anamensis for the first time and to recognize that these features differed from the morphology common to the Belohdelie frontal and to other cranial specimens already known for Lucy's species. As a result, the new study confirms that the Belohdelie frontal belonged to an individual of Lucy's species. This identification extends the earliest record of A. afarensis back to 3.9 million years ago, while the discovery of MRD nudges the last appearance date of A. anamensis forward to 3.8 million years -- indicating the overlap period of at least 100,000 years.
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190828140118.htm

LINKS To Published Papers' Abstracts:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1514-7
 
Studying the inner ear of apes and humans could uncover new information on our species’ evolutionary relationships.

Source: www.heritagedaily.com
Date: 3 March, 2020

Humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and gibbons all belong to a group known as the hominoids. This ‘superfamily’ also includes the immediate ancestors and close relatives of these species, but in many instances, the evolutionary relationships between these extinct ape species remain controversial. The new findings suggest that looking at the structure (or morphology) of the inner ears across hominoids as a whole could go some way to resolving this.

“Reconstructing the evolutionary history of apes and humans and determining the morphology of the last common ancestor from which they evolved are challenging tasks,” explains lead author Alessandro Urciuoli, a researcher at the Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont (ICP) in Barcelona, Spain. “While DNA can help evolutionary biologists work out how living species are related to one another, fossils are typically the principle source of information for extinct species, although they must be used with caution.”

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/...s-to-evolutionary-history-of-hominoids/126064
 
The growing brain, long childhood of the mind.

Lucy’s kind had small, chimplike brains that, nevertheless, grew at a slow, humanlike pace.

This discovery, reported April 1 in Science Advances, shows for the first time that prolonged brain growth in hominid youngsters wasn’t a by-product of having unusually large brains. An influential idea over the last 20 years has held that extended brain development after birth originated in the Homo genus around 2.5 million years ago, so that mothers — whose pelvic bones and birth canal had narrowed to enable efficient upright walking — could safely deliver babies.

But Australopithecus afarensis, an East African hominid species best known for Lucy’s partial skeleton, also had slow-developing brains that reached only about one-third the volume of present-day human brains, say paleoanthropologist Philipp Gunz of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues. And A. afarensis is roughly 3 million to 4 million years old, meaning slow brain growth after birth developed before members of the Homo genus appeared, perhaps as early as 2.8 million years ago (SN: 3/4/15).

Too few A. afarensis infants have been studied to calculate the age at which this species attained adult-sized brains, Gunz cautions. The brains of human infants today reach adult sizes by close to age 5, versus an age of around 2 or 3 for both chimps and gorillas.

In the new study, Gunz and colleagues estimated brain volumes for six A. afarensis adults and two children, estimated to have been about 2 years and 5 months old. The kids had brains that were smaller than adult A. afarensis brain sizes in a proportion similar to human children’s brains at the same age relative to adult humans.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lucy-species-brain-skull-heralded-rise-long-childhoods-hominids
 
Did roboustus and erectus out-compete Australopithecus?

Members of three different hominid lines clustered at the bottom of Africa around 2 million years ago, signaling an evolutionary swing propelled by the spread of a highly successful, humanlike species, new fossil discoveries suggest. It’s unclear, though, if the three ancient populations inhabited the region at precisely the same time.

Excavations at Drimolen, a set of caves in South Africa, uncovered two fossil braincases, one from Homo erectus and the other from Paranthropus robustus, say paleoanthropologist Andy Herries of La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues. Both finds date to between 2.04 million and 1.95 million years ago, the scientists report in the April 3 Science.

The H. erectus fossil comes from a child who displayed a long, low braincase typical of adults from that species. The P. robustus braincase is that of an adult.

Researchers previously determined that two Australopithecus species, A. africanus and A. sediba (SN: 7/25/13), inhabited nearby parts of South Africa approximately 2 million years ago.

Taken together, these discoveries indicate that a major transition in hominid evolution occurred in southern Africa between around 2.1 million and 1.9 million years ago, Herries’ team says. During that stretch, climate and habitat fluctuations drove Australopithecus species to extinction.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hominid-transition-occurred-southern-africa-2-million-years-ago
 
Two-million-year-old skull of human 'cousin' unearthed

Australian researchers say the discovery of a two-million-year-old skull in South Africa throws more light on human evolution.
The skull was a male Paranthropus robustus, a "cousin species" to Homo erectus - a species thought to be direct ancestors of modern humans.
The two species lived around the same time, but Paranthropus robustus died out earlier.
The research team described the find as exciting.
"Most of the fossil record is just a single tooth here and there so to have something like this is very rare, very lucky," Dr Angeline Leece told the BBC.
The researchers, from Melbourne's La Trobe University, found the skull's fragments in 2018 at the Drimolen archaeological site north of Johannesburg.
It was uncovered just metres away from a spot where a similarly aged Homo erectus skull of a child was discovered in 2015.
(c) BBC.'20
 
Ardi and company.

She is the most controversial, convention-defying, weirdest-looking fossil hominid ever found.

Fittingly, the group that discovered this 4.4-million-year-old adult female, nicknamed Ardi, includes the most controversial, convention-defying (and some would say weirdest-acting) fossil hunters and bone analysts to have ever wrestled with the puzzle of how humans and our ancestors evolved.

In Fossil Men, journalist Kermit Pattison recounts intriguing backstories of the Ardi scientists and how they came to challenge popular views of hominid evolution. Many incidents in the book show the courage and grit it took to find and excavate Ardi in Ethiopia’s remote Middle Awash area, where local nomadic groups are prone to shoot at outsiders. Pattison also examines how Ardi’s skeleton makes her a one-of-a-kind find.

Standing at the center of this ancestral spectacle is team leader Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. A demanding and intense taskmaster in the field, White has a hard-earned reputation as one of the all-time great fossil hunters. Pattison describes White as having remarkably keen eyes for assessing fossil bones and a knack for brutal, sarcastic takedowns of evolutionary arguments (and scientists) he finds deficient. In a published review of an eminent anthropologist’s book claiming that hominid evolution included many species, White called him a purveyor of “politically correct paleoanthropological pontification” that didn’t rise to the level of fiction such as The Clan of the Cave Bear. Not surprisingly, White has amassed scientific enemies since the early 1970s, when he worked with members of the fossil-hunting Leakey family in Africa. He takes his professional infamy in stride. ...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fossil-men-book-ardi-kermit-pattison-hominid-evolution
 
The fossil known as 'Toumai' continues to be controversial. A pair of new papers (one published; one under review) debate whether Toumai represents a bipedal human ancestor.
Controversial 7-Million-Year-Old Skull May Not Have Been as Human as We Thought

The question of whether a 7-million-year-old primate, nicknamed 'Toumai,' walked on two or four legs has whipped up drama amongst palaeontologists - complete with a vanishing femur.

Since the discovery of Sahelanthropus tchadensis's first fossil back in 2001, it has often been cited as our earliest known hominin ancestor. Initial analysis suggested that Sahelanthropus regularly walked upright and had a combination of ape-like and human-like features.

These conclusions, however, were based on a single skull.

The skull has anatomical features that potentially indicate this primate had an erect spine, and therefore spent some of its time walking on two legs only. Its small teeth also appear more human than ape-like. A later reconstruction supported these findings.

But other researchers have since argued that this alone is not enough evidence to class Sahelanthropus as a hominin biped - a primate directly ancestral to humans - rather than a related, but not directly ancestral hominid.

Around the same time and at the same location where the skull was found, in Toros-Menalla in Chad, a partial left femur was also recovered. The femur vanished after another researcher started to examine it in 2004, having come across it supposedly by chance.

Aude Bergeret-Medina and her supervisor, palaeoanthropologist Roberto Macchiarelli from the University of Poitiers in France, eventually continued their analysis based on measurements and photos. They have just published their findings, which cast doubt on Sahelanthropus's place in our family tree. ...

Another paper still awaiting peer review from one of the authors of the original Sahelanthropus studies disputes this, claiming the femur has a hard top ridge that supports an upright stance. ...

FULL STORY: https://www.sciencealert.com/seven-...e-from-one-of-our-earliest-ancestor-after-all

Here are links to the two new research papers ...

Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Roberto Macchiarelli, Aude Bergeret-Medina, Damiano Marchi, BernardWood
Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 149, December 2020, 102898
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102898

Abstract Available At:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248420301597?via=ihub

--------

Postcranial evidence of late Miocene hominin bipedalism in Chad
Franck Guy, Guillaume Daver, Hassane Taisso Mackaye, Andossa Likius, Jean-Renaud Boisserie, Abderamane Moussa, Patrick Vignaud, Clarisse Nekoulnang
(In Review)

Draft Available At:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-69453/v1
 
Ardi and company.

She is the most controversial, convention-defying, weirdest-looking fossil hominid ever found.

Fittingly, the group that discovered this 4.4-million-year-old adult female, nicknamed Ardi, includes the most controversial, convention-defying (and some would say weirdest-acting) fossil hunters and bone analysts to have ever wrestled with the puzzle of how humans and our ancestors evolved.

In Fossil Men, journalist Kermit Pattison recounts intriguing backstories of the Ardi scientists and how they came to challenge popular views of hominid evolution. Many incidents in the book show the courage and grit it took to find and excavate Ardi in Ethiopia’s remote Middle Awash area, where local nomadic groups are prone to shoot at outsiders. Pattison also examines how Ardi’s skeleton makes her a one-of-a-kind find.

Standing at the center of this ancestral spectacle is team leader Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. A demanding and intense taskmaster in the field, White has a hard-earned reputation as one of the all-time great fossil hunters. Pattison describes White as having remarkably keen eyes for assessing fossil bones and a knack for brutal, sarcastic takedowns of evolutionary arguments (and scientists) he finds deficient. In a published review of an eminent anthropologist’s book claiming that hominid evolution included many species, White called him a purveyor of “politically correct paleoanthropological pontification” that didn’t rise to the level of fiction such as The Clan of the Cave Bear. Not surprisingly, White has amassed scientific enemies since the early 1970s, when he worked with members of the fossil-hunting Leakey family in Africa. He takes his professional infamy in stride. ...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fossil-men-book-ardi-kermit-pattison-hominid-evolution

Ardi may have been more of a Chimp; the jury is still out on Laurel.

One of the earliest known hominids, a 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton of a female dubbed Ardi, had hands suited for climbing trees and swinging from branches, a new investigation suggests.

These results, based on statistical comparisons of hand bones from fossil hominids and present-day primates, stoke an ongoing debate not only about how Ardi moved (SN: 2/22/19) but also what the last common ancestor of humans and chimps looked like (SN: 12/31/09).

“The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was more similar to chimps than to any other living primate,” says paleoanthropologist Thomas Prang of Texas A&M University in College Station. That ancestor, who lived roughly 7 million years ago, had hands designed much like those of tree-adept, knuckle-walking chimps and bonobos, he and his colleagues say. That hand design was retained by early hominids such as Ardi’s East African species, Ardipithecus ramidus, the team reports February 24 in Science Advances.

Hand fossils showing a more humanlike design and grip first appeared in a later hominid, Australopithecus afarensis, Prang’s group reports. That fossil species, best known for Lucy’s partial skeleton, inhabited East Africa from around 3.9 million to 3 million years ago.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-hominid-ardi-hand-bone-fossils-grip-chimp-human
 
Enjoyed this. An entertaining wrap of fresh additions to the family tree. This is pop archaeology with momentous results. 2013-15
 
New ways of depicting hominids.

Depictions of extinct human ancestors and cousins are often more art than science.

Take, for example, two reconstructions of the Taung child, a 2.8-million-year-old Australopithecus africanus skull discovered in South Africa in 1924. One version, made using a sculptor’s intuition, appears more apelike. A second version, made while working alongside a scientist, appears more humanlike.

Now, the researchers that produced the dueling images are attempting to remove some of this subjectivity by introducing standards that may give more accurate and reproducible portraits of species known only from fossilized bone. The team points out some of the flaws in facial reconstructions of ancient hominids — and the social and ethical implications misleading portraits may have — in a report published February 26 in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

side by side computer illustrations of a face and head

These two reconstructions of the Taung child depend on subjective decisions to make it appear more apelike (left) or humanlike (right).G. VINAS, R.M. CAMPBELL, M. HENNEBERG AND R. DIOGO

Getting the depictions right matters, says Rui Diogo, a biological anthropologist at Howard University in Washington, D.C. When museumgoers see artists’ renditions of Neandertals or extinct hominids, visitors often don’t realize how much bias creeps into the work. “They think it is reality,” he says. And that can skew people’s views and reinforce existing prejudices of present-day people.

For instance, reconstructions of multiple extinct hominids in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., portray skin getting lighter and lighter in color as species became more and more bipedal. “But there is zero evidence to say the skin was whiter,” Diogo says. Such a depiction might give the mistaken impression that people with lighter skin are more evolved.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-hominids-reconstruction-extinct-human-evolution-taung
 
New ways of depicting hominids.

Depictions of extinct human ancestors and cousins are often more art than science.

Take, for example, two reconstructions of the Taung child, a 2.8-million-year-old Australopithecus africanus skull discovered in South Africa in 1924. One version, made using a sculptor’s intuition, appears more apelike. A second version, made while working alongside a scientist, appears more humanlike.

Now, the researchers that produced the dueling images are attempting to remove some of this subjectivity by introducing standards that may give more accurate and reproducible portraits of species known only from fossilized bone. The team points out some of the flaws in facial reconstructions of ancient hominids — and the social and ethical implications misleading portraits may have — in a report published February 26 in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

side by side computer illustrations of a face and head

These two reconstructions of the Taung child depend on subjective decisions to make it appear more apelike (left) or humanlike (right).G. VINAS, R.M. CAMPBELL, M. HENNEBERG AND R. DIOGO

Getting the depictions right matters, says Rui Diogo, a biological anthropologist at Howard University in Washington, D.C. When museumgoers see artists’ renditions of Neandertals or extinct hominids, visitors often don’t realize how much bias creeps into the work. “They think it is reality,” he says. And that can skew people’s views and reinforce existing prejudices of present-day people.

For instance, reconstructions of multiple extinct hominids in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., portray skin getting lighter and lighter in color as species became more and more bipedal. “But there is zero evidence to say the skin was whiter,” Diogo says. Such a depiction might give the mistaken impression that people with lighter skin are more evolved.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-hominids-reconstruction-extinct-human-evolution-taung
I would also say the bias can also work the other way, neither the artists nor the scientists know for sure what the child looked like in life, so both are just making a best guess, the child could easliy have looked like either or nothing like either we just ont know for sure.
 
When did hominin brains become human?

Pinpointing when our ancient ancestors evolved humanlike brains is a frustratingly difficult puzzle.

Brains almost never fossilize, so researchers must scrutinize impressions in the skull left behind by the brain’s grooves, folds, and bulges. A new analysis of such imprints from five skulls suggests our genus, Homo, developed complex language and advanced toolmaking hundreds of thousands of years later than previously thought. Other researchers disagree with that interpretation, but say the study still sheds much-needed light on brain structures in our genus’ earliest days.

The fossil skulls, discovered in the 1990s in Dmanisi, Georgia, are tentatively identified as the early human ancestral species, Homo erectus. They represent some of the earliest members of our genus, as well as the earliest people to trek out of Africa. The four males and one female, who lived between 1.85 million and 1.77 million years ago, show a wide range of primitive, intermediate, and humanlike brain features, says Shawn Hurst, an anthropologist at the University of Indianapolis who studies primate brain evolution and was not involved in the study. That sheer variability within a single population is surprising, he says. “That’s amazing. … It’s actually a more interesting story than the one they suggest.”

Many anthropologists have assumed that humanlike brain features—especially those having to do with speech and language—developed at about the same time the genus Homo emerged out the genus Australopithecus. Yet no convincing data supported that idea, says the new study’s first author, Marcia Ponce de León, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich. Many scientists have followed in the tradition, thinking “if it’s Homo, there must be something special about its brain,” she says. ...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ren-t-brainy-we-thought-fossil-skulls-suggest
 
New book on the effects of bipedalism.

No other animal moves the way we do.

That’s awfully strange. Even among other two-legged species, none amble about with a straight back and a gait that, technically, is just a form of controlled falling. Our bipedalism doesn’t just set us apart, paleoanthropologist Jeremy DeSilva posits; it’s what makes us human.

There’s no shortage of books that propose this or that feature — tool use or self-awareness, for example — as the very definition of humankind. But much of our supposed uniqueness doesn’t stand up to this tradition. In First Steps, DeSilva takes a slightly different approach. Our way of walking, he argues, set off an array of consequences that inform our peculiar evolutionary history.

DeSilva starts his tour through the annals of bipedalism with other upright organisms. Tyrannosaurus and ancient crocodile relatives are trotted out to show how they moved on two legs, thanks to long, counterbalancing tails (SN: 6/12/20). DeSilva stumbles a little here, like arguing that “bipedalism was not a successful locomotion for many dinosaur lineages.” An entire group — the theropods — walked on two legs and still do in their avian guises. But the comparison with dinosaurs is still worthwhile. With no tail, the way we walk is even stranger. “Let’s face it,” DeSilva writes, “humans are weird.”

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-steps-book-bipedalism-human-evolution-anatomy-behavior
 
Debates about Little Foot.

Little Foot, a nearly complete hominid skeleton painstakingly excavated from rock inside a South African cave, shouldered a powerful evolutionary load.

This 3.67-million-year-old adult female sports the oldest and most complete set of shoulder blades and collarbones of any ancient hominid. Those fossils also provide the best available model for what the shoulders of the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees looked like, say Kristian Carlson, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and his colleagues. Their results provide new insights into how both Little Foot and a human-chimp last common ancestor climbed in trees.

Little Foot belonged to the Australopithecus genus, but her species identity is in dispute (SN: 12/12/18). The shape and orientation of her shoulder bones fall between corresponding measures for humans and present-day African apes, but most closely align with gorillas, Carlson reported April 27 at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. His talk was based on a paper published online April 20 in the Journal of Human Evolution.

Little Foot lived roughly half-way between modern times and the estimated age of a human-chimp common ancestor, says paleobiologist David Green of Campbell University in Buies Creek, N.C., a member of Carlson’s team. ...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/little-foot-hominid-skeleton-shoulder-human-chimp-ancestor-climb
 

Vid at link.

More than 10 million years ago, the world was brimming with a wide variety of apes.

Scientists studying the ones that are still alive today can learn a lot about human evolution—but they miss out on many clues that can only be found from the apes that went extinct. Watch to learn how fossil apes have strengthened ideas about how humans evolved, and what steps we can take to learn even more about our ancient ancestors.

*Correction, 12 May, 4:45 p.m.: In the above video at 1:10 we stated that some living apes today adapted to survive in new, open environments. This is inaccurate—surviving lineages of apes likely specialized to live in the remaining tropical forests, not in open environments. At 1:45 Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is misspelled. At 2:25 we state that fewer Miocene apes have been discovered in Africa than in Europe. To clarify, this refers to the mid-to-late Miocene.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...lanet-apes-and-they-set-stage-human-evolution
 
And here is another Prototype.

From Harbin China.

"Dragon Man".

Possibly a Denisovian.

Kept under wraps for 90 years.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...may-be-elusive-denisovan-or-new-species-human

A very important find indeed!
A few extra details in today's Guardian, including that homo longi was a male aged around 50, had a brain capacity comparable to modern humans and would have stood slightly taller than today's average height.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...e-well-forces-scientists-to-rethink-evolution
 
Meat eating and the development of brains/bodies.

When it comes to killing and eating other creatures, chimpanzees—our closest relatives—have nothing on us. Animal flesh makes up much more of the average human’s diet than a chimp’s.

Many scientists have long suggested our blood lust ramped up about 2 million years ago, based on the number of butchery marks found at ancient archaeological sites. The spike in calories from meat, the story goes, allowed one of our early ancestors, Homo erectus, to grow bigger bodies and brains.

But a new study argues the evidence behind this hypothesis is statistically flawed because it fails to account for the fact that researchers have focused most of their time and attention on later sites. As a result of this unequal “sampling effort” over time at different sites, the authors say, it’s impossible to know how big a role meat eating played in human evolution.

Even before the study, many experts suspected the link between carnivory and bigger brains and bodies in early humans might be complex, says Rachel Carmody, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University who wasn’t involved in the work. The new results, though, “take the important step of demonstrating empirically that controlling for sampling effort actually changes the interpretation.”

To conduct the study, W. Andrew Barr, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University, and colleagues reviewed previously reported data on the appearance of butchery marks at nine archaeological hotbeds of early human activity across eastern Africa spanning 2.6 million to 1.2 million years ago. As expected, the scientist found an increase in the number of cutmarks on animal bones beginning about 2 million years ago. However, the researchers noticed that archaeologists tended to find more cutmarks at the sites that have received the most research attention. In other words, the more time and effort researchers poured into a site, the more likely they were to discover evidence of meat eating.

https://www.science.org/content/art...big-brains-story-isn-t-so-simple-study-argues
 
So much for the sneering response of the Kzinn: intelligent cat like carnivores from Larry Niven's Ringworld novels.

"How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a lettuce?"
 
New dating research indicates the hominin remains from the Sterkfontein cave system in South African - long called the "Cradle of Humankind" are substantially older than previously believed.
'Cradle of Humankind' Fossils May Be a Million Years Older Than Previously Thought

Multiple ancient hominin remains from caves in South Africa may be much, much older than previous estimates suggested.

The Sterkfontein limestone cave system, not far from Johannesburg, has yielded so many ancient bones from the hominin genus Australopithecus over the last century that its location has been dubbed the Cradle of Humankind – deeply important to the study of human evolution.

Now, new dating techniques suggest that the remains date back nearly 4 million years – making them even older than the famous Australopithecus afarensis individual Dinkinesh, nicknamed Lucy.

"Sterkfontein has more Australopithecus fossils than anywhere else in the world," said geologist and geophysicist Darryl Granger ...

"But it's hard to get a good date on them. People have looked at the animal fossils found near them and compared the ages of cave features like flowstones and gotten a range of different dates. What our data does is resolve these controversies. It shows that these fossils are old – much older than we originally thought." ...

Dinkinesh was dated to 3.2 million years ago, based on radiometric dating of the volcanic ash in the sediment where she was found, but caves are a more pristine environment, where volcanic ash doesn't fall.

Previous estimates for the complex Sterkfontein system were based on the age of calcite flowstone found within the cave fill. It formed around 2 to 2.5 million years ago. ...

Rather than examining the flowstone, or other bones found nearby (that may not be contemporaneous to the remains in question), the team examined the rock in which the Australopithecus remains were embedded. Specifically, they probed the radioactive decay of two rare isotopes in quartz: aluminum-26 and beryllium-10. ...

From these isotopes, the team discerned that the Australopithecus-bearing sediments all date from between 3.4 and 3.7 million years ago. That means the remains recovered from the deposit are all from around the beginning of the Australopithecus era, and not its end as previously thought.

This has important implications for our understanding of human evolution, and Sterkfontein's place in it, the researchers said. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencealert.com/cradle...illion-years-older-than-we-previously-thought
 
I guess previous researchers were talking shite.

Scientists have discovered a curious creature with no anus is not the earliest human ancestor, as previously thought.

The mysterious microscopic creature is instead part of a different family tree, a new study suggests.

Resembling an angry purple Minion, the Saccorhytus is a spikey, wrinkly sack, with a large mouth surrounded by spines and holes. These were interpreted as pores for gills – a primitive feature of the deuterostome group – animals typically characterised by their anus forming before their mouth – from which human ancestors emerged. But analysis of 500 million-year-old fossils from China suggests the holes around the mouth are bases of spines that broke away during the preservation of the fossils.

Yunhuan Liu, professor in Palaeobiology at Chang’an University, China, said: “Some of the fossils are so perfectly preserved that they look almost alive. Saccorhytus was a curious beast, with a mouth but no anus, and rings of complex spines around its mouth.” ...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40942532.html
 
Back
Top